At What Point Do Blue States Bail on Federal Programs

by mrgavel, Tue May 17, 2005 at 09:58:04 PM EST

One of the legacies of the New Deal was the idea that certain problems were national problems and should be dealt with nationally. The idea of relying on States to deal with problems began to fade. That philosophy led to national support for education, law enforcement, national highways, environmental protection, and other programs.

Now, though, most "blue" states are paying more in Federal taxes than they get back in Federal spending and with most "red" states paying less in Federal taxes than they get back. At what point will this situation become intolerable for blue states?

Think about it. Most blue states are fairly wealthy and already tax their citizens to pay for social services. If they didn't have to support red states which are not paying their own share, then they would have even more money.

If the Feds got out of funding education, or environmental programs, or law enforcement, who would suffer more South Dakota or New Jersey? Misssissippi or New York? North Dakota or Oregon?

Right now, red states have the best of both worlds. There is a core group of blue state representatives and senators who will pass programs that they can share in, but they also get to support presidents like Bush.

Maybe the time has come to start thinking about changing this game. Maybe the time has come for a discussion of the proper role of the Federal government. If they don't want to fund it, then why should they get to use its resources?

Poll
Should blue states continue to support federal programs?
Yes, we are all in this together
No, blue states are being taken for a red ride

Votes: 19
Results : Vote Link : Polls


Tags: (all tags)


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: